Van Heerden v Bronkhorst

The respondent (Bronkhorst), widow of the deceased Willem Jacobus Bronkhorst, applied in the Mpumalanga High Court for an order authorising the Master to accept an unsigned draft joint will allegedly executed by her and the deceased in 1998. The original signed will could not be found after the deceased’s death in 2014, but an unsigned draft prepared by Bankcorptrust was discovered. The appellant (Van Heerden), the deceased’s daughter from a previous marriage, noted an intention to oppose but failed to file answering affidavits. The matter proceeded on the unopposed roll and the order was granted. The appellant later sought rescission of the order under rule 42(1)(a) and, alternatively, under the common law, alleging procedural irregularities and denying that the will had ever been signed.

The appeal against the dismissal of the rescission application was dismissed with costs.

The case clarifies the application of Rule 42(1)(a), confirming that not every procedural irregularity renders a judgment erroneously granted. It emphasises substance over form in procedural compliance, the permissibility of electronic service, and reinforces the stringent requirements for rescission under the common law, particularly the need for a bona fide defence supported by primary facts.